Burden of proof lies with manufacturer

A car was taken to the workshop several times, yet its problems persisted. So, Maruti needed to establish why the problems couldn't be rectified

On June 26, 2002, Deepak Singh purchased an Esteem VXL petrol car for Rs 5,99,068 from Batra Auto Company, an authorised dealer of Maruti Suzuki India. The vehicle started giving problems right from the time of purchase.

The complaints were acknowledged and these were to be attended at the time of the first service. The problems included noisy door suspension, defective music system, and noise from the shock absorbers. However, only the engine oil filter assembly was changed. None of the other defects was removed.

When the vehicle was taken for second service, all the existing defects as well as new ones, such as disconcerting noises from the brake, and the fuel gauge not working, were pointed out and listed in the job card. This time the rear suspension was replaced, but this did not make any difference. All the other problems continued to persist.

Even at the time of the third service, the workshop could not rid the car of its defects. On taking up the matter with Maruti, Singh was advised to take the car to the Customer Care Manager for removal of defects. When the vehicle was returned, he was told that the problems had been resolved after changing the spring rear coil and shock absorbers. But Singh did not find any difference in the working of the vehicle. Maruti accepted that the complaint about the noise was still persisting, but now attributed this to the alloy wheels. Singh did not find this plausible, and when he expressed dissatisfaction, he was once again asked to bring the car for removal of the problems. When all his efforts proved futile, Singh filed a complaint before the district consumer forum.

The complaint was contested. Maruti claimed that the vehicle did not suffer from any manufacturing defect as it had undergone stringent quality control tests before dispatch to the dealer, who too had carried out a pre-delivery inspection. Maruti argued that all the free services had been given, so Singh was not entitled to demand repairs or replacement of the vehicle.

The Forum ordered Maruti to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation for deficiency in service, and Rs 50,000 as harassment and litigation expenses. Maruti challenged the order, but its appeal was dismissed.

Finally, Maruti filed a revision before the National Commission, contending that the order was incorrect as no evidence had been produced to establish that there was any manufacturing defect. The National Commission observed that even though the vehicle had been taken to the workshop on a number of occasions, the problems persisted despite replacement of parts. So, the burden of proof was on Maruti to establish why the problems could not be rectified. The Commission also pointed out that any part fitted in a workshop cannot be equated with the fitment at the assembly stage during the manufacturing of the vehicle. The Commission concluded that Singh could not get the enjoyment and satisfaction of having a new car as the vehicle had to be taken to the workshop repeatedly for repairs, which could not resolve the issues in the vehicle.

By its order of March 26, 2021, delivered by Justice Deepa Sharma, the National Commission dismissed the revision, upheld the Forum's order, and re-confirmed the finding of deficiency in service.

The writer is a consumer activist